3 ms·

> When a ballot is received, the name of the person is entered into a poll book. Therefore, when you see a poll book and a pile of ballots, you can check that

> When a ballot is received, the name of the person is entered into a poll book. Therefore, when you see a poll book and a pile of ballots, you can check that the counts are the same. Entering data into the poll book is therefore one of the most critical parts of an election, and is the part that is critically observed by election watchers. You cannot merely smuggle in pre-filled ballots, as the ballot counts would not match the poll book counts. "When a ballot is received, the name of the person is entered into a poll book." I'm not familiar with the exact mechanics of this. From where does the ballot originate, where/how is the ballot "received", and what is the procedure for entering it into the poll book? And, is this process identical (in design, and confirmed practice) for all states and polling stations? > You would also need to explain how poll books were falsely updated. Technically, I do not. Fraud (some fraud, not necessarily massive fraud) occurred in physical reality, or it did not. My personal opinion on the matter, or lack of an explanation, is orthogonal to events that occurred in physical reality. The burden of evidence is on the one who asserts the claim. And, that which occurred in physical; reality, is that which occurred, regardless of whether we have "proof" of it. Reality itself, and human measurements/opinions/"facts" about reality, are distinct entities. Related, but different. > If someone smuggled in fake ballots, AND somehow managed to falsify the poll book, it would be possible to use the poll book to ASK people if they voted. It may be "possible", but is it practical? How difficult would it be? Is the current approach perfectly optimal, or could it be improved? > You could then find people who say they did not vote, but there is a record of them voting. We "could", but would we? Did we spot check any ballots? How much evidence do we have that demonstrates or suggests that there precisely zero anomalies anywhere in the system (and how hard did we look)? > It is therefore trivially falsifiable with current election procedures. Only if your premises are flawless. > Or is there something you think I'm missing? The above questions. Also, it's probably worth pointing out that neither of us (or a combination of us) are guaranteed to have 100% comprehensive knowledge of all possible points of failure. > Here is the critical moment where the woman in Michigan argues with a Republican, claiming without evidence that the poll book is off, when it was literally trivial to check it. (Look for the tweet with "Holy smokes the sequel is even better!") Do any comprehensive conclusions logically (and inevitably) follow from this event, or might the significance of it be more related to the notion of rhetorical/heuristic influence? I have a bit of an issue with the manner in which we approach this whole situation from an educational perspective. As a society, we've surely spent many tens or hundreds of person-hours participating in meme wars about this topic. If this sort of non-productive (and socially destructive) behavior was going on anywhere we worked, I would expect that someone was assemble a FAQ or Wiki of some sort that laid out the details - fully comprehensive, and fully accurate (across all states), in a format that is approachable by all employees. Does such a resource exist for the election process?

VikingCoder 6y ago
It's honestly worth going through election monitoring training in your state to find the answers to these questions. > And, is this process identical (in design, and confirmed practice) for all states No, of course not. The elections are run, independently, by each State. By design, the rules are different. Because we are a Federal government, made of multiple States. This is on purpose. > Reality itself, and human measurements/opinions/"facts" about reality, are distinct entities. Related, but different. Yes, and it is only rational to have beliefs based on evidence. And we live in a system of laws expressing how that evidence is to be gathered, evaluated, and decided upon. This week, a ton of people rejected that process, because they FEEL like they can't trust it, proposing nothing to replace it instead. > It may be "possible", but is it practical? Voting irregularities are investigated, yes. > Is the current approach perfectly optimal, or could it be improved? Perfect is the enemy of good. And we're discussing THIS election. I welcome a different discussion about improving the process for future elections. > Did we spot check any ballots? Yes. Please inform yourself. The information is available. > How much evidence do we have that demonstrates or suggests that there precisely zero anomalies anywhere in the system You can't prove a negative. Literally, you cannot. We mitigate the risks. We look for evidence of wrong-doing. And when we can't find it, we look harder. We think about designing a process that is as good as possible, we enact laws, and we move on. > Only if your premises are flawless. I propose a method to gather evidence and evaluate it. A system of laws. We have that. We do that. It is not flawless. It is what we have. Improving that system by proposing better processes and laws is wonderful. Rejecting that process by violently storming the Capitol building, smearing feces on the wall, and murdering a police officer, is not wonderful. > The above questions. I don't think you asked any interesting questions. You asked questions that indicate you have not invested much time in researching them, and you asked epistemological questions. Neither were very constructive, for the current election, in my opinion. > Also, it's probably worth pointing out that neither of us (or a combination of us) are guaranteed to have 100% comprehensive knowledge of all possible points of failure. I don't propose that I do. I propose that we have a system of laws, and courts, and checks and balances, and a Fourth Estate (the media), to helps us evaluate possible points of failure and prosecute wrong-doing. > Do any comprehensive conclusions logically (and inevitably) follow from this event, She doesn't know what she's talking about. That is a logical conclusion. > I would expect that someone was assemble a FAQ or Wiki of some sort that laid out the details There are literally hundreds of books, hundreds of web pages, hundreds of explanations, millions of hours of explanation. Here's a 31 minute long video from Georgia alone: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953321408/georgia-election-official-dont-let-misinformation-suppress-your-own-vote https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953321408/georgia-election-of...

VikingCoder 6y ago

It's honestly worth going through election monitoring training in your state to find the answers to these questions. > And, is this process identical (in design, and confirmed practice) for all states No, of course not. The elections are run, independently, by each State. By design, the rules are different. Because we are a Federal government, made of multiple States. This is on purpose. > Reality itself, and human measurements/opinions/"facts" about reality, are distinct entities. Related, but different. Yes, and it is only rational to have beliefs based on evidence. And we live in a system of laws expressing how that evidence is to be gathered, evaluated, and decided upon. This week, a ton of people rejected that process, because they FEEL like they can't trust it, proposing nothing to replace it instead. > It may be "possible", but is it practical? Voting irregularities are investigated, yes. > Is the current approach perfectly optimal, or could it be improved? Perfect is the enemy of good. And we're discussing THIS election. I welcome a different discussion about improving the process for future elections. > Did we spot check any ballots? Yes. Please inform yourself. The information is available. > How much evidence do we have that demonstrates or suggests that there precisely zero anomalies anywhere in the system You can't prove a negative. Literally, you cannot. We mitigate the risks. We look for evidence of wrong-doing. And when we can't find it, we look harder. We think about designing a process that is as good as possible, we enact laws, and we move on. > Only if your premises are flawless. I propose a method to gather evidence and evaluate it. A system of laws. We have that. We do that. It is not flawless. It is what we have. Improving that system by proposing better processes and laws is wonderful. Rejecting that process by violently storming the Capitol building, smearing feces on the wall, and murdering a police officer, is not wonderful. > The above questions. I don't think you asked any interesting questions. You asked questions that indicate you have not invested much time in researching them, and you asked epistemological questions. Neither were very constructive, for the current election, in my opinion. > Also, it's probably worth pointing out that neither of us (or a combination of us) are guaranteed to have 100% comprehensive knowledge of all possible points of failure. I don't propose that I do. I propose that we have a system of laws, and courts, and checks and balances, and a Fourth Estate (the media), to helps us evaluate possible points of failure and prosecute wrong-doing. > Do any comprehensive conclusions logically (and inevitably) follow from this event, She doesn't know what she's talking about. That is a logical conclusion. > I would expect that someone was assemble a FAQ or Wiki of some sort that laid out the details There are literally hundreds of books, hundreds of web pages, hundreds of explanations, millions of hours of explanation. Here's a 31 minute long video from Georgia alone: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953321408/georgia-election-official-dont-let-misinformation-suppress-your-own-vote https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953321408/georgia-election-of...